W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2011

"How Browsers Process URLs" aka "URL processing spec": HTML WG deliverable or I18N WG deliverable?

From: Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 10:17:09 +0900
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20111121011707.GA74034@sideshowbarker>
For those following the discussions of issue-56 (Bring "URLs"
section/definition and IRI specification in alignment) and bug 8207 (Change
definition of URL to normative reference to IRIBIS) and the draft spec at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-abarth-url-01 ("How Browsers Process
URLs", or what we've sometimes been referring to as the "URL processing
spec" or "IRI processing spec"):

I will be discussing that draft with the W3C I18N WG during their weekly
telcon tomorrow. One thing we are likely to discuss is whether that spec
should be a deliverable of the I18N WG, or whether it should be a
deliverable of the HTML WG.

So if you have comments about that which you would like for me to make the
I18N WG aware of, please to reply this message with your comments.

For more details on the context of this request, see the forwarded message
below, and see issue-56 (Bring "URLs" section/definition and IRI
specification in alignment) and bug 8207 (Change definition of URL to
normative reference to IRIBIS)


More background on where we are at with this: At the face-to-face meeting
at TPAC 2011, we also had a discussion about this, led by Peter St. Andre
-- about what's referred to in the message below as "the IRI processing
spec", which is the draft at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-abarth-url-01

The minutes for the IETF IRI WG face-to-face meeting at IETF 82 say that
spec "has since been considered best moved to the W3C to describe URI and
IRI parsing and processing" and "processing spec done by W3C.  would be a
self-contained document that IETF could reference."


So the next action needed is that the HTML WG and I18N WG need to
coordinate on deciding which of the two groups should have that spec as a

Note that the HTML WG issue which this spec relates to, issue-56, is an
issue that was opened more than 3 years ago, and for which the chairs, on
behalf of the working group, announced a Working Group Decision in March of
this year:

  Explain within the HTML5 spec how to translate input strings contained in
  text/html documents into URIs

The chairs are currently tracking issue-56 as a "new information" issue:


If anybody has questions about where we're at with this, please ask.


----- Forwarded message from "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com> -----

From: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>
To: "Martin J. D¸«ärst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Chris Weber <chris@lookout.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 11:04:47 -0800
Subject: RE: Agreement on IRI "processing spec" moving to W3C
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/131F80DEA635F044946897AFDA9AC3476AA51C467B@EX-SEA31-D.ant.amazon.com>

> On 2011/11/20 15:11, Chris Weber wrote:
> > During IETF 82 an announcement was made that the IRI "processing spec"
> > would move to the W3C for creation as a self-contained document. See
> > <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/> for the minutes.
> >
> > Are IRI WG members in agreement on this decision?
> Some procedural questions:
> What WG will handle this? Will there be a mailing list with reasonably limited
> scope? (rather than a mailing list where a vast array of unrelated issues is
> discussed on a daily basis?) Could we maybe even use this mailing list for this
> work, because it's hosted by W3C and the relevant people should already be
> here? Or would that be too complicated, because it would have to run under
> two sets of rules (IETF and W3C)?

The I18N-WG is chartered to produce Working Group Note documents and is
willing to host the document, as long as "Working Group Note" status is an
acceptable document status. It may be that the HTML-WG would prefer to host

> Also, how will we make sure that the work on the main spec (3987bis) and
> this processing spec work is going to be coordinated? There are some points
> where such coordination should happen, e.g. around encoding issues in
> query parts.

(individual comments) For definition of "what is an IRI", the processing
spec should obviously be subordinate to the main IRI spec. The processing
spec, of course, has to deal with error conditions and out-of-bounds items.


Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect (Lab126)
Chair (W3C I18N WG)

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

----- End forwarded message -----

Michael[tm] Smith
Received on Monday, 21 November 2011 01:17:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:45 UTC